This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? by…

Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? (original 2010; edition 2010)

by James Shapiro (Author)

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingMentions
4782932,843 (4.11)15
Title:Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?
Authors:James Shapiro (Author)
Info:Faber and Faber
Collections:S: Ref, S: Ref (digital)

Work details

Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? by James Shapiro (2010)


Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

No current Talk conversations about this book.

» See also 15 mentions

Showing 1-5 of 29 (next | show all)
A hugely important book. The silliness over allegations that other people wrote Shakespeare's plays and poems continues into the 21st century, with no good reason. The great thing about Shapiro's book is that he analyses the history of such claims, as well as the stories of the two most common claimants - Francis Bacon and Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford - from an academic point-of-view, allowing us to see the reasons why these traditions arose, and the motivations behind those who were doing it. Shapiro manages to explain that there was plenty of cause for doubt, largely owing to lack of information, and misinformation, about Shakespeare's time.

Ultimately, the conclusion that Shapiro reaches is perfectly reasonable: the original supporters of Bacon and Oxford had their own reasons, and can at least be forgiven for inventive thinking. However, no new evidence has come to light in the last hundred years, and indeed evidence only points further to the futility of the argument, and the fact that Shakespeare is still the most likely candidate to have written his plays. (One of the most delightful ironies of the case, Shapiro points out, is that only a secret of truly shocking order - for instance, that Oxford was the lover and/or brother of Queen Elizabeth - could have caused a conspiracy so elaborate as to be almost impossible, yet such a secret would surely lead to someone doing otherwise with their life than writing luxuriously pointless comedies like "Much Ado About Nothing" and cheekily hiding obvious clues to their identity in the poems - while also having the foresight to anticipate that 20th century literary analysis would be able to pick up on them!)

Shapiro's book is the best of its kind in elaborating on the theories of Bacon and Oxford. However, there are better books on the case FOR Shakespeare, as this section is surprisingly short, which perhaps just evidences that Shapiro spent all of his research time on the claimants. Still, that's acceptable. Shapiro touches the basics of what we now know about Shakespeare, and pulls out a number of interesting facts (such as that the 'k' and 's' of a typesetter's kit could easily become entangled if pressed together, hence why a hyphen or 'e' was often included in "Shakespeare". It's not, as some nuts would have you believe, yet another hilariously unsubtle reference from Oxford that "Shake-speare" was a pseudonym.)

Oxfordians are probably very interesting people: they have rich imaginations, a refusal to subscribe to mainstream thought without questioning, and a love of good drama. Unfortunately, they also subscribe to a thought from over a hundred years ago that is thoroughly outdated. It's a thought that ignores the realities of playmaking, typesetting, copyright, and beliefs of the age, as well as imagining a kind of English writer's circle that could hold such a secret. (As a member of such a writing circle in another city, we ALL know each other: I doubt anyone in the theatre could fake their identity for three decades). Beyond this, their assumptions are based primarily on the idea that someone of less-than-aristocratic birth couldn't be a genius. As Shapiro notes, one of the old claims was that Shakespeare's aristocrats are so complex that they could only be written by an aristocrat. Even putting aside the simplistic retorts to that (do the murderers, teenage girls, and prostitutes of Shakespeare's plays come from another writer too?), one must wonder about the vast number of peasants and lower-born figures who are just as richly drawn.

It's a shame that an incredibly fringe theory (one that was almost obliterated until the rise of the internet, as Shapiro notes) has crept into the popular imagination of late. It does disservice to a long-dead great, makes inaccurate and ridiculous assumptions about Elizabethan life, and promotes the idea that we should all just "stay in our place". Rubbish. Read this book! ( )
2 vote therebelprince | Oct 30, 2018 |
A must-read if you are at all interested in the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly if you, like Shapiro--and like me--believe that Shakespeare wrote his own plays). Covers some of the same ground as Shakespeare's Lives, but in a more readable and engaging fashion. The final section is an extremely compelling (to me) argument for Shakespeare-as-author. ( )
  GaylaBassham | May 27, 2018 |
A must-read if you are at all interested in the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly if you, like Shapiro--and like me--believe that Shakespeare wrote his own plays). Covers some of the same ground as Shakespeare's Lives, but in a more readable and engaging fashion. The final section is an extremely compelling (to me) argument for Shakespeare-as-author. ( )
  gayla.bassham | Nov 7, 2016 |
A work that is simultaneously a solid work of scholarship and a compulsive read – a veritable rara avis indeed (a black swan of Avon, perhaps?) It's worth noting that the cover (of the UK hardback, at least) and the title are both a little misleading: Shapiro doesn't investigate every possible non-Stratfordian author, but (as he points out) his detailed refutation of the proponents of Bacon and Oxford function just as well to refute other claims. ( )
  Lirmac | Apr 20, 2016 |
“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” - As You Like It

I've only discovered James Shapiro recently due to paying more attention to Shakespeare studies in this 400th Anniversary Year. Considering there is very little known about Shakespeare's life, Shapiro has also managed to produce two impressive book-length biographical speculations in A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599 and The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606. "Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?" investigates the background and basis for all of the non-Shakespeare authorship contenders and proponents.

The main proponents are the Baconians (supporters of Sir Francis Bacon and the Oxfordians (supporters of Edward De Vere Earl of 1550-16 Oxford with the latter getting the most mileage in recent years esp. with the recent movie "Anonymous" (2011) directed by Roland Emmerich.

Probably the most shocking thing about the whole non-Shakespeare authorship conspiracy is the number of quite respected authors and persons who have supported one or another claimant in the past. You just don't expect people like Henry James, Sigmund Freud and Mark Twain to be part of what seems like a bunch of cranks. And you know you are in crank territory when proponents of Edward de Vere start counting the number of anagram appearances of his name as "Ever" or even as "(N)Ever" and interpreting those as secret coded signatures in the play texts.

The most intriguing part of the book was the information about the current state of co-authorship studies which is much further along than I think is generally known, with several of the so-called "canonical" plays showing evidence of collaboration. [You can see further in a wikipedia summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William...] The conspiracy proponents haven't yet expanded their "theories" to explain why their noble or royal authorship contenders would have lowered themselves to mix with such a variety of playwright commoners.

This is really 5 out of 5 research and writing, but I'm scoring a 4 because I got a bit worn down from having to read the history of so many nutty ideas. ( )
  alanteder | Mar 29, 2016 |
Showing 1-5 of 29 (next | show all)
"It is authoritative, lucid and devastatingly funny, and its brief concluding statement of the case for Shakespeare is masterly."
added by bookfitz | editThe Sunday Times, John Carey (Mar 21, 2010)
"Shapiro does not waste words on the preposterous, but he does uncover the mechanism of fantasy and projection that go to make up much of the case against Shakespeare. His book lays bare, too, assumptions about the writing life that come to us from the 18th-century romantics."
added by bookfitz | editThe Guardian, Hilary Mantel (Mar 20, 2010)
You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Series (with order)
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Awards and honors
"I gyve vnto my wief my second best bed"
from Shakespeare's will
For Luke
First words
This is a book about when and why many people began to question whether William Shakespeare wrote the plays long attributed to him, and, if he didn't write them, who did.
Last words
(Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)
Disambiguation notice
Publisher's editors
Publisher series
Original language
Canonical DDC/MDS
Book description
Haiku summary

No descriptions found.

Shakespeare scholar James Shapiro explains when and why so many people began to question whether Shakespeare wrote his plays.

(summary from another edition)

» see all 3 descriptions

Quick Links

Popular covers


Average: (4.11)
0.5 1
2 2
2.5 1
3 7
3.5 9
4 36
4.5 9
5 26

Tantor Media

An edition of this book was published by Tantor Media.

» Publisher information page

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.


About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 136,477,927 books! | Top bar: Always visible